date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:14:28 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyztiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu>
subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Science issue Feb 22/23
to: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Hmmm. Well everyone makes good points and clearly there is some range of
opinion. However, I take away from this a *near* concensus that some sort
of measured response is appropriate and perhaps necessary.
Phil makes a number of very important specific points about what needs to
be addressed here, which could effectively be considered an outline for the
letter. Regardless of who takes the lead role, we'll want to make sure
everyone has an opportunity for some input on the content. One thing that
Phil doesn't mention, but which I think is also a key point, is that
community has evolved beyond the point where we need to invoke handwaiving
arguments about millennial oscillations to explain the large-scale climate
history of the past millennium. Tom has clearly shown this in his work, and
its very convenient for Broecker to ignore this entirely (as well as
Bradley and Jones, Hughes & Diaz, etc.). Now, none of us are saying that
there could not have been an enhanced regional overprint in the North
Atlantic of the "LIA" vs "MWP" sort, associated with ocean circulation
changes. Keigwin, someone Broecker loves to cite in general when talking
about this stuff, has in fact reinterpreted his Sargasso sea record (w/ the
new evidence from the Laurentian fan) as associated with a regional
overprints of an NAO-type pattern at the millennial timescale. Furthermore,
these may have been paced by the same millennial-scale solar insolation
variations forcing hemispheric mean temperature changes (I commented on
this in my perspective on Tom's piece last year). These are points that are
worth hitting, because they provide a physically reasonable (rather than
absolutely ad hoc) interpretation of the evidence.
My own suggestion is that Tom and Malcolm take the lead. Malcolm, because
much of this really, as Phil points out, gets at Hughes & Diaz more than
Bradley & Jones and Mann et al, etc. And Tom, because of the importance of
the recent modeling evidence that huge internal millennial swings of the
"conveyor belt" are no longer tenable in the fact of far more rigorous
understanding of climate forcing of the past millennium. Now since Tom has
already offered to be principle author, I for one would like to take him up
on it! Tom???
thanks in advance for comments, further ideas...
As Phil At 10:14 AM 2/27/01 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
> Mike et al,
> Sorry about the multiple sendings. I've forgotten my glasses and
>couldn't see I'd
> missed a comma.
> Another thing to point to is the special issue of Climatic Change by
> and Trausti Jonsson. They point to the LIA not being very appropriate in
> So Julia handled it. Even she thought it was handwaving, but it
>passed the usual
> Science review process. Obviously this isn't great as none of us got to
>review it. Odd
> that she didn't send it to one of us here as she knew we were writing the
> asked us to ! Anyway that is water under the bridge.
> As for authorship we have this article coming out so this rules us
>out. Tom isn't
> keen and he's away. Wally told me he didn't reckon Tom, so Tom has got
> vibes. Julia is asking us to go ahead and hinting at a joint response.
>One possibility is
> either you or Macolm taking the lead. Malcom and Henry wrote the MWP
> Climate Change in 94. Keith and I think something pointed about the MWP
>is the way
> to go. Could add in that even the two warming periods in the 20th century
> warming everywhere - especially the early 20th century.
> Remember that we are all basically averaging long series together and
>if one site
> shows a big warming/cooling then the average will to a lesser extent.
>Also bring in
> a few of the papers where people have compared tree based reconstructions
> glacial advances/retreats (eg Raper et al in J. Glaciology and Luckman et
>al in the
> Holocene. Also there are more in that Interhemispheric Linkages Book of
> work by Ricardo Villalba and others).
> Basically need to point to a load of literature that we would expect
> an article of this type to be aware of. Also the North Atlantic isn't the
>last word in NH
> and global averages. Clearly said in Hughes and Diaz and papers therein.
> Also the latest IPCC report will use and reference the latest curves,
> 1400 they are not that different from Bradley and Jones (1993), so why
>the fuss now.
> Clearly the MWP is the issue that has got a few worked up, but we have
> nothing that couldn't have been gleaned in 1994. Maybe we're stating it
> now, but the recent warmth of the 1990s is a factor as well.
>>From: "Julia Uppenbrink" <JuppenbrinkatXYZxyzence-int.co.uk>
>>To: "Phil Jones" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>>Subject: RE: Science issue Feb 22/23
>>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:05:45 -0000
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>>Thanks for your message regarding Wally Broecker's Perspective. I am of
>>course aware of this Perspective coming out - I did handle it - I realized
>>that it was perhaps a bit handwaving in parts but I thought the message was
>>interesting and the article passed the usual screening. But we are always
>>open to criticism! So please do send a letter to us; you can send it
>>directly to me, and you may cowrite it with Tom Crowley and Mike Mann or you
>>can send separate letters (if the concerns overlap a lot then one letter is
>>perhaps better than several). The letter will be handled through our letters
>>department, and we will get a response from Wally plus possibly outside
>>review before we make a decision to publish.
>>I look forward to receiving your letter.
>>From: Phil Jones [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>Sent: 26 February 2001 14:40
>>To: Julia Uppenbrink
>>Subject: Science issue Feb 22/23
>> > Dear Julia,
>> I don't know if you have seen the Perspectives piece in last
>>week's issue of
>> Science by Wally Broecker. I guess it was nothing to do with you and it
>> several inaccuracies and sweeping statements. I accept it is a personal
>> and I've not seen the issue yet , only a copy that I was ironically given
>> Broecker as we were both guest speakers at a meeting at Bowdoin College,
>> on Saturday. I got back this morning to Norwich.
>> I talked to Wally about it over the weekend and will send him a few
>> pointing out a few of the things he should have read. Some things he
>>states are just
>> I don't want to change the article already accepted, but what are
>> of writing a response to Wally's piece in a later issue. I've been
>>contacted by a couple
>> of people in the US about Broecker's piece (Mike Mann and Tom Crowley),
>> quite unhappy about it and would like to respond. They both know about
>> piece and wanted me to comment, hence my email to you. The invited piece
>> address some of the issues, but not the link between high and low
>> proxy series.
>> Best Regards
>>Prof. Phil Jones
>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (804) 924-7770 FAX: (804) 982-2137